Apologies for the espn.com link -- tennis.com didn't have it up yet. I'll grab some better links as they appear. The makeup of the later rounds of the women's singles tournament didn't have that many radical surprises...but what I want to know is, who the hell is Zheng Jie?

Still, they need to adjust the seeding because it has absolutely no correlation to who is favored to win. My information shows that 22 of the top 24 seeds were placed within one position of their world ranking. What other method would you propose? Should we base seedings upon injury reports, records on grass, whether or not they play better in Europe than in Australia or the US, previous finishes at the big W? Sure the surface and injuries do have an effect, but what other legitimate option is there other than their WTA ranking?

Sure the surface and injuries do have an effect, but what other legitimate option is there other than their WTA ranking? I don't know, but when V. Williams, the 7th seed, is playing Dementieva, the 5th seed, and no one gives the 5th seed much of a chance of winning, the seeds are useless.

This should be GOOD!! I do agree with the seeding questions though. Serena dominated that first set, but second and third... That game could've gone either way. At least it seems that the sisters battle each other pretty good.

It's the first all-sister final in five years, I think there's a little typo or misunderstanding there in the fpp, saying that it's the third straight all-Williams Wimbledon final. But that's just editorial nitpicking. Nice job by the ladies to get to this point, when many thought them to be in the twilight of their careers! I think the seeding system, and subsequent rash of upsets, speaks to the parity in womens' tennis more than anything, and I think it's great. Each slam event brings us a new face (or reintroduces us to an old one) to cheer for, and that adds to excitemnt, in my opinion. And does anyone really think that Dementieva was accusing the sisters of pre-determining outcomes? Just seems like shit-stirring on the part of the sporting press to me. I'm kind of bummed the Williams sisters responded to it publicly, as Dementieva's explanation that it was a language cross-up sounds pretty plausible to me.

Knowsalittle, they could look at the matches played on that surface over the last 52 weeks. It's absurd to have Davydanko seeded 4 at Wimbledon or Roddick seeded (at all) at Roland Garros. Although it occurs to me that Wimbledon would have problems doing this since there is no grass season...

Seeds are based on previous performance in the past. No seeding is ever going to deliver the 32 lowest seeds out in the first round, 16 more the next, 8 more the one after that, four more in the quarterfinals, and two in the semis that insures the top two meet in the finals. I always understood the concept of "that's why they play the games." I reiterate my original question which only sic addressed...if not the rankings, what else?

Not a big fan of tennis, but I will watch this they are so competitive. I am rooting for big sister but think that little sister will take it. If baseball players were as competitive as these girls things would be much better.

Another thought... if they play more than 70% of their games on "hardcourt' surfaces, and less than 30% on grass and clay, are we rewarding the few who play regularly on the more obscure surfaces unjustly during the French 0pen and Wimbeldon? it seems they would get the better seeding for just not playing on the other surfaces. And what about when the best in the world skip a tournament on a certain surface to pad their seeding? How about Federer passing on the French? A slippery slope.....